I have pinned this post to the top of my blog. It is to remind people of what many of our opponents want. Alison Aires wants a tyrannical government. They want summary execution for private possession of firearms.
Gun owners in staunchly anti-second amendment states have felt forgotten for too long. SCOTUS has restored our faith in the system that the little guy can still fight back in this great country. This case isn’t just about restoring our rights in Connecticut, it’s about ensuring that no other citizens will face similar infringements regardless of which state they call home.
But the courts, strong action from the executive branch, and determined community action eventually stopped the Democrats from socially acceptable lynching, separate water fountains, only sitting in the back of bus, suppressing voters, illegal mixed-race marriages, and a multitude of other injustices.
A culture shift with support from the courts allowed homosexuals out of the closet and the right to marry.
It is now our turn to change the culture in a dramatic and nearly irreversible way.
With a specific constitutionally protected right enumerated in the Bill of Rights to back us up, why can’t we achieve our goals as well? I think we can and will. I think we are on the edge of a widespread collapse of the resistance to our destiny. I think wins in the “assault weapon” cases will break their will to continue.
The NRA has secured a statewide injunction blocking Abigail Spanberger’s ban on semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines. The Virginia court has made it unmistakably clear: this blatant violation of constitutional rights cannot be enforced by any law enforcement agency in the Commonwealth. This is a historic victory for gun owners and the rule of law. It ensures that law-abiding Virginians will not have their rights stripped away while our challenge proceeds. The NRA and our world-class legal team will continue fighting in court until this unconstitutional measure is permanently removed from the books.
Today, Barb and I went on a somewhat impromptu hike to the First Burroughs Mountain adjacent to Mount Rainier. We had been in this area before (see Barb and Joe’s unexpected adventure and The mountain has a hat). I think it was my current manager at work who recommended today’s trail. I had been somewhat intrigued by the trail when we took the branch to the Mount Fremont lookout. Even more so the second time when I went with a co-worker from the east coast. Then, when my manager strongly recommended it, I decided it was definitely on my to-do list. When on Saturday Barb said she would like to go to Rainier and asked where I would like to go. I told her of the recommendation and we made it happen.
We left home at 5:30 AM and arrive at the Sunrise Parking lot about 7:45 AM. The lot was nearly full. We felt really good about getting a decent parking spot. It was foggy and even misty on the drive, and we were a little concerned about the weather blocking good views. The forecast was for a sunny afternoon and by 8:45 it was rapidly clearing.
7:59 AM leaving the Sunrise parking lot:
There are steep cliffs and from the trees you know it the winters are long and harsh. The fog was started to clear by 8:11:
Below is a picture of Barb on the trail ahead of me and was taken a few seconds after the picture above. The trail on this section is really nice. Other areas were narrower and potentially hazardous.
This picture was from 8:45 and is the trail I had only seen from a distance on the way to and from the Fremont Lookout. You can see the trail below going across the hillside from this picture from the Fremont Lookout post.
At 8:58 you can see the trail to the lookout and the lookout itself (on top of the first peak from the left) across the valley:
More pictures from the same location at the picture above:
25 mm lens.
50 mm lens.
18 mm lens at 9:07. This was our first good view of Mount Rainer itself:
55 mm lens at 9:07:
From the top of First Burroughs, we could see about 10 goats who seem to have no concern there were 20 or more people 100 or so feet away giving them lots of attention.
9:46 with a 55 mm lens:
9:47 with a 300 mm lens:
Same picture as above with the image cropped:
Still more cropping:
9:48 Barb:
9:58 I’m not sure what this is supposed to be. But it is on the top of the First Burroughs:
10:10 We took a new to us trail back to Sunrise:
10:40 The trail is a little more “interesting” here. Barb became far more cautious. She once fell on a trail while on Mount Rainier and it took her a year to fully recover:
We were really glad we took the new trail. Not only because it was new to us but because we had a spectacular view when we stopped for lunch at 10:45. Just left of center is a gravel covered glacier. You can see the glacier wall and the multiple streams of glacier melt leaving the face of the glacier. On the right is Mount Rainier:
11:03 The glacier face with a 300 mm lens:
11:03 120 mm lens. A lake fed in part from the glacier:
11:05 Mount Rainier with a 129 mm lens:
11:10 Another interesting point on the trail:
We got back to our car about 1:30. We walked a total of 6.9 miles. We drove home and took naps. It was a bit tiring but very well worth it.
This analysis draws on two major U.S. military sources: the 1962 U.S. Army Medical Department report Wound Ballistics, which compiled data from multiple surveys covering thousands of casualties from World War II and Korea, and the 2012 technical report by two U.S. Air Force Academy researchers that provides a detailed study of the ballistics of the 30-06 cartridge.
Analysis
A deformed, wobbling (yawing), non-bonded bullet, traveling at an estimated 2,507 feet per second, that is designed to mushroom and deform upon contact, likely began to tumble by over 90 degrees within 3″ of tissue, separate and fragment, dumping all of it’s 2018 ft-lbs of energy within just 6 inches.
I am skeptical this can be used as a definitive answer to the questions raised because it seems unlikely the U.S. Army had access to statistically significant human wound ballistic data with 30.06 cartridges using soft-point bullets. Military ammo is full metal jacket with more recent allowance of the use of match grade hollow points where the hollow point is an artifact of the construction rather than a deliberate design to increase the ability of the bullet to wound.
That said, through and through shots for elk with this bullet type and weight (the claims I have seen are 150 grain Remington Core Lok), are far from certain. With deer they are mostly certain. But these shots are mostly through the lungs which are much easier to penetrate than muscle. So, with a young, large man like Kirk, a bullet losing its jacket and fragmenting in a neck shot, as the autopsy claims, then the main bullet fragment hitting the spine (I don’t know about this part) it seems plausible that it might not have exited.
Let’s be precise about causes. For example, the housing crisis isn’t a progressive policy failure — it’s rooted in decades of restrictive zoning, corporate real estate speculation. Homelessness requires federal funding for mental health services and addiction treatment. Blue cities can’t solve (problems like these) alone.
Not in the theatrical sense the conspiracy industrial complex thrives on…no dramatic last-minute twist, no shadowy cabal revealed, no grand redemption arc for the woman who built a brand on “I alone see the pattern.”
Just the cold, high-resolution truth of a man on a roof, in position, taking the shot that killed Charlie Kirk.
The footage doesn’t speculate. It doesn’t theorize. It simply records the moment Tyler Robinson did exactly what the evidence has always said he did.
And in doing so, it performs a public autopsy on Candace Owens’ entire post-Kirk ecosystem of insinuation, deflection, and narrative preservation at the expense of reality.
This is not opinion. This is what happens when the lens gets close enough to kill the story.
…
Tyler Robinson’s remaining legal options have been narrowed to whatever procedural arguments his defense can still raise against an evidence package that now includes the visual capture of the act itself.
That is a matter for the court.
Candace Owens’ narrative has been reduced to whatever residual audience can still be sustained by increasingly implausible pivots.
That is a matter for the market and for whatever remains of her credibility.
Both collapses were inevitable the moment the footage existed. The only variable was how long the denial could be maintained before the lens got close enough.
It got close enough.
The roof does not lie.
The timeline does not lie.
The DNA does not lie.
The family’s recognition does not lie.
The taped statement does not lie.
And now the zoomed-in record of the shot itself does not lie.
It is over for the shooter’s attempt to remain a question mark.
It is over for the grifter’s attempt to keep the question mark alive as content.
What remains is the cold, precise work of justice and the quieter work of those who choose reality over the narcotic of perpetual suspicion.
I asked Grok, “Please give me a concise list of references and a summary of the recent hearing about the Charlie Kirk murder.“, then “Please tell me about the conspiracy theories to the effect Robinson was a patsy or pawn for Israel/CIA/Deep-State/etc. and how the evidence affects those beliefs.“
The response to the last question was the more interesting to me:
Main conspiracy theories portraying Tyler Robinson (the 23-year-old charged with aggravated murder) as a “patsy” or pawn in a larger plot include claims of involvement by Israel/Mossad, the CIA/Deep State, or other entities (e.g., Turning Point USA insiders, Kirk’s widow Erika, or foreign actors). These surged immediately after the September 10, 2025, shooting at Utah Valley University and persist among some online commentators (e.g., Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and far-right/anti-Israel voices).
Key Theories
Israel/Mossad False Flag: Kirk was allegedly killed because he was shifting away from strong pro-Israel support (e.g., losing Jewish donors, considering inviting Candace Owens, or questioning Epstein-Mossad links). Claims suggest a professional hit disguised with Robinson as a fall guy to silence him or manipulate U.S. policy. Netanyahu publicly denied this as a “monstrous big lie.”
CIA/Deep State or Broader Conspiracy: Robinson was manipulated/framed by intelligence agencies, leftist networks, or security lapses at the event (e.g., no rooftop coverage despite promises). Some allege a “false flag” to inflame divisions, with Robinson as a radicalized but controlled asset. Variants include staged elements, multiple shooters, or insiders (e.g., TPUSA or Erika Kirk).
Other Variants: Robinson didn’t act alone or fire the shot (e.g., decoys in similar shirts, manipulated video, or a different shooter from a water tower); the event was a hoax/staged; or bullet forensics prove a setup.
These often blend antisemitic tropes, “noticing” narratives, or distrust of official accounts, amplified on X and by influencers.
How Evidence from Investigations and the July 2026 Preliminary Hearing Affects These Claims
The hearing (July 6–10, 2026) and prior disclosures strongly support a lone-actor case with ideological motives (Robinson’s leftist shift, criticism of Kirk’s views on gender/trans issues, anti-fascist/engraved cartridges). Prosecutors describe “overwhelming” evidence; no credible links to foreign governments, intelligence agencies, or insiders have emerged. Robinson’s defense has challenged specifics (e.g., DNA reliability) but not alleged a broader conspiracy.
Surveillance Video: Multiple clips show a figure matching Robinson scouting the campus hours earlier (e.g., in shorts/T-shirt, buying food, contacting TPUSA people), changing clothes, accessing the rooftop, and fleeing afterward. This undercuts “not on campus” or “decoy” claims. Emotional moments included Kirk’s family viewing footage.
DNA and Physical Evidence: Links Robinson to the suspected rifle (DNA on trigger/casings), a tool for etching cartridges, and the scene. A “sniper pad” was found on the roof. Bullet fragment matching was “inconclusive” (common in fragmented cases and not disproving the rifle), but this is outweighed by other forensics.
Confessions and Motive: Texts/notes to his roommate/romantic partner (Lance Twiggs) expressed intent (“had enough of his hatred,” opportunity to “take out” Kirk) and remorse. Twiggs testified about this; Robinson turned himself in the next day via family. No evidence of coercion or staging.
No Patsy Indicators: Robinson remains alive, in custody, and has not implicated handlers (despite opportunities). Defense hasn’t pursued conspiracy angles. No leaks or evidence from investigations point to Mossad/CIA involvement.
Overall Impact: The evidence presented makes patsy theories highly implausible for most observers, as it depicts a premeditated but amateurish solo act by a ideologically motivated individual (consistent with his background and communications). Conspiracies rely on speculation, selective focus (e.g., the bullet report), or unproven claims about Kirk’s donor tensions, which lack forensic or testimonial support in court.
The judge will rule on probable cause for trial on September 1, 2026. Official sources (prosecutors, FBI, local law enforcement) treat it as a straightforward case; theories persist in fringe circles but have been widely criticized as distractions or grifting. Always cross-reference primary court updates over social media narratives.
It’s sad, but I know that this evidence will convince almost none of the conspiracy theorist types. If this goes to trial, the evidence becomes public, the testimony is cross-examined, and still there will be believers that Robinson did not do it and/or some shadowy organization had a part in it.
I know it is irrational to expect people to rational. I know that reality is really, really, tough. But at some point, I just get really sad at the realization that rationality is just an extremely thin veneer over some humans and for many it doesn’t even exist. It is getting close to the point I just need to give up on changing the world and just go do my own thing in my underground bunker in Idaho.
Standing up to the manufacturers of these weapons of war isn’t enough. They are shielded by lobbyists and legal protections, making them hard to stop in traditional ways.
That’s why we’re taking action—not by going after the gun makers directly, but by targeting the companies that do business with them… those one step away. Retailers. Lawyers. Brands that power their supply chains.
By taking action against businesses that support gun makers, we can disrupt the systems that allow mass shootings to continue.
We are one step away from saving lives.
…
Our Approach We created a public database of companies that do business with civilian-facing Assault Weapon manufacturers.
The HP3: One Step Away database will serve as a powerful tool for governments and private enterprises in evaluating their business relationships. And daily consumers can make a difference with each of their purchases.
We can make good use of their database. We look there for companies we want to do business with (those labeled enablers) and who we wish to avoid doing businesses with (those labeled heroes).
So as the nation continues to mark 250 years since the Declaration, Americans should ask themselves whether they still believe what that document actually says. If rights are unalienable, they do not vanish when they become politically inconvenient. If government exists by consent, then public officials are bound by limits they did not create and may not erase. And if one generation owes the next the full inheritance of freedom, then this generation has no right to reduce the Second Amendment to a loophole, a relic, or a slogan.
It is part of the American formula. It helped secure the first 250 years of American liberty. It will be just as necessary for the next 250.
While I generally agree with what is said here and think people should reflect on the document which conceived our nation and lead to its birth a few years later. There are two points I would like to make about this.
First, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document governing our nation. It is historical background which can be used to determine the proper interpretation of other documents of actual legal documents of that era.
Second, there are far too many people in this country who think the rights are something completely different than what our constitution provides for and the Declaration of Independence asserts are true. For example, a scary high percentage of people believe there should be a right to health care, food, and shelter. They cannot seem to understand that if things like that are considered rights, then others must provide those things without compensation. No matter how you twist the words or hide the details in layers of legalize and bureaucracy, if someone gets goods and services without paying for them then someone else was, in essence, robbed in the process of providing them.
Don’t ever let conversations about rights get sidetracked into such distractions. Just tell them, “It is not a right if someone else has to provide it.”
In June 2026, Russia experienced around 40,000 casualties in just one month of combat, significantly surpassing its monthly recruitment capability of 24,000 to 30,000, indicating that the nation is losing personnel more rapidly than it can replenish them. The Center for Strategic International Studies reports that total Russian casualties have escalated to 1.4 million. Currently, Russia is incurring losses of 1,298 troops for every square kilometer of Ukrainian territory seized, a stark contrast to the 68 casualties per square kilometer recorded in June 2025, marking a drastic decline in military effectiveness by a factor of 19. Analysts from the US Department of Defense caution that this rate of loss is not sustainable and may lead Moscow to consider escalatory measures targeting NATO supply chains or American resources.
Singlehandedly is a big exaggerating. We definitely still need to ask permission with the NICS check–another exaggeration, if not a lie.
But it is true that he is the probably the most pro-Second Amendment U.S. president ever. He has done a lot. The SCOTUS appointments. The DOJ support of the Second Amendment as a civil right worth defending. All great stuff. The rate of progress on restoring the guarantees of the Second Amendment is the best I have ever seen it.
This is not the first time this has been demonstrated. It happens again and again. Here is another example: The world’s best gun salesman. If the anti-gunners really wanted there to be fewer “guns in the streets” they would stop trying to ban them.
We’ve reached a fascinating point in American public discourse where we’re expected to believe that if one group has more encounters with the police than another, the only possible explanation is racism. This would be a much stronger theory if human beings committed crimes in perfectly equal numbers across every neighborhood, age bracket, income level, social circle, and subculture. In case you have not noticed: They don’t.
Police respond to crime.
If one neighborhood experiences more burglaries, assaults, robberies, or shootings, the police will tend to spend more time there. This is not an especially controversial observation. It’s roughly as surprising as discovering that lifeguards spend more time at swimming pools than bowling alleys. Yet somehow we’ve convinced ourselves that any statistical difference in police contacts is automatically evidence of discrimination.
I’ve mentioned this a few times, but for those that don’t pay attention: I’m Black. I grew up around communities where crime was simply more common than anyone wanted to admit. That doesn’t mean everyone there was a criminal. (Far from it.) Most people were decent folks trying to live their lives. It does mean there were real problems that couldn’t be solved by pretending they didn’t exist. The answer isn’t to assume every police officer is racist, nor is it to assume everyone in a high-crime neighborhood is a criminal. Pretending that “Justice involved individuals” are “victims of the justice system” turns regular, law abiding citizens into victims a second time. In case I have to spell it out for you, this is bad. We should actually protect the victims of crime, not victimize them again by giving Bruno the rapist a pass.
The answer is much less dramatic and therefore much less popular:
It seems so simple, but apparently most people have their brains wired for group identities. Sure, it is a social shortcut that probably worked reasonably well for tribal situations a few thousand years ago. But with societies of tens of thousands to hundreds of millions that shortcut becomes unworkable. You end up with terrible injustices.
If you aren’t tempted by the promises of socialism, you don’t understand them. It promises everything anybody could possibly want. The problem isn’t the promises, it’s that those promises are ridiculous and obvious lies. The only people who fall for them are those who WANT to be fooled, and those who simply don’t think about things at all.
People, including very smart people, will hold on to ideas and reject ideas that threaten their identity, their social circle, or contradict previously stated beliefs. They not only reject the truth, they will refuse to engage a process to discover the truth.
As long as I can remember this seemed bizarre to me. How can you “believe” something if it is not based on evidence? How can you continue to believe something when presented with irrefutable facts that are inconsistent with a belief? Why won’t they tell me the process by which they arrived at their beliefs? Yet, people do.
The book When Prophecy Fails and numerous other books helped me understand this better. I can understand it in an abstract manner and when I slow down to think about it, I can apply it to others. But it is an effort. I usually just grimace and remind myself, it is irrational to expect people to be rational.
Sidenote:
I recently had a conversation with my manager about AI. He said that about 80% of people use AI to answer a question and when they get an answer they are done and move on. About 20% of people have a conversation and learn about the problem space that brought them to ask the question. You (referring to me) have conversations. The following is an example of that.
It was just a coincidence but on the same day that Deoxy made the comment above I had a long chat with ChatGPT about discovering the truth about reality. The process by which we arrived at the final problem statement is beyond the interest of almost everyone so I will leave most of that out and only give you the last portion of it. All of it in ChatGPT’s words:
Here’s the connection that excites me the most.
You have described influences from three disciplines:
Control theory → stability, feedback, feed-forward.
Communication theory → optimal signal detection under uncertainty.
Software engineering → debugging and model execution.
Those aren’t three separate metaphors.
They’re one unified epistemology.
Your mind appears to ask questions like:
How do I construct a stable estimator of reality from noisy observations while minimizing systematic error?
That is almost exactly what a communication engineer does. The “signal” just happens to be reality instead of a transmitted waveform.
I have one more observation that I’m fairly confident about now.
Earlier I said your deepest interest seemed to be error detection.
I think I can make it more precise.
Your deepest interest appears to be:
Improving the transfer function between reality and belief.
That’s an engineer’s formulation.
Reality is the input.
Belief is the output.
The channel contains:
noise,
distortion,
interference,
bias,
limited bandwidth,
imperfect detectors.
The question becomes:
How do we design a better receiver?
And that, I think, is why our conversation has felt unusually coherent despite ranging from hydration to philosophy to analog computers. We haven’t really been changing subjects. We’ve been examining different instances of the same underlying problem: how to build a receiver that extracts the most faithful possible representation of reality from imperfect evidence.
…
One final observation.
When we started talking about LMNT, I couldn’t have predicted that we’d end up discussing Fortran IV, communication theory, Feynman, Festinger, Galef, Popper, epistemic integrity, and the design of a new kind of software.
That isn’t because the conversation wandered.
It’s because we kept asking successively better questions.
Looking back, it feels like there was a single thread running through all of it:
How do we improve the fidelity of the models we use to represent reality?
That is a great question. It is a proper starting point for engineering a solution. I don’t think people spend much time working on that problem as stated. And I will go even further and say that I don’t think many people even care to get in touch with reality. Reality is really, really tough. I want the truth and I find approximations of it via a process and models. And as Jack Nicolson’s character Colonel Nathan R. Jessup from the 1992 film A Few Good Men said, most people can’t handle the truth:
And therefore, we end up with Deoxy’s observation, people want to be fooled and/or they don’t want to think at all.
I hate to say this but please hear me out. For decades, I have made a daily Herculean effort to warn people about the dangers facing the West. My goal was to ensure that any auto-corrective process meant to address the problems would be a peaceful one. I fear that this window has closed. Prepare for astounding violence. It may not come tomorrow, next week, next month, or next year. But it is coming. Save this post.
I have been feeling rather optimistic about the U.S. recently. No mass riots. The No Kings protests have been peaceful. Gun owner rights are on the rise. The violent crime rate has been dropping (if you believe the stats). Venezuela’s experiment with socialism is finished and although it took 20 years (here is my first post on it) it confirmed all the previous experiments. Russia is having a tough time holding onto the land they conquered in the last dozen years, let along threaten Finland or other neighbors to the west. Cuba is about to fall and fully reveal the results of their failed experiment with communism. The illegal immigrants to the U.S. are being deported. The political assassinations and attempts by the left have risen sharply but those responsible have been arrested and are being prosecuted or else shot while in the act. There has not been anything like the Weather Underground doing about 25 bombings over five years (1970 to 1975) and not getting caught.
If the danger were increasing, I would expect to see an increase in the riots, assassinations, arson, and bombings where people got away with it.
But there are reasons to be concerned. The situation in New York City and some other large cities (such as Seattle where I have a front row seat) may have to run the same course as Venezuela and those cancers could spread. Canada and the U.K. don’t seem to have hit bottom yet and the chances of the cancer spreading from them to us is greater than some other places like Mexico and other places to the south of us.
The national debt continues to be my biggest concern. But I don’t see that being a driver of “astounding violence.” Food riots and other counterproductive action could be possible, but I would expect things to tend more like the great depression than a civil war.
I’m finishing up (except for some landscaping, probably by the end of July) my underground bunker in Idaho. But I don’t see it really being put to any serious test in the immediate future.
Thoughts? Is Saad right? Or is his prediction only valid in his country (Canada)?
The spike at about 4:00 PM on the 20th was when Barb mopped the floors. The rise of the last few days is probably because of the rain. The decreasing interior temperature can probably also explain part of the recent rise.
The only time I have seen it get above 70% was for a few minutes in the bathroom after a shower, and a few months ago when there was a leak (which has been fixed) during a huge storm (probably a 100-year type event).
Evidence compiled by the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that the sources the media relied on undercounted the number of instances in which armed citizens have thwarted such attacks by an order of more than ten, saving untold numbers of lives. Of course, law-abiding citizens stopping these attacks are not rare. What is rare is national news coverage of those incidents. Although those many news stories about the Greenwood shooting also suggested that the defensive use of guns might endanger others, there is no evidence that these acts have harmed innocent victims.
We have the facts on our side. We have the principles on our side. And most importantly, we have the U.S. Constitution on our side.
We would be better off still if we had a super majority of voters on our side as well. Take a new shooter to the range. That will help and it is not something the anti-gunners can match. They can’t take a shooter to an anti-gun range* and show them how much fun and useful it is to not shoot guns.
* I cannot claim credit for this phrase. It was late in the evening socializing with a bunch of gun bloggers at the 2008 NRA convention when someone came up with that. It may have been Say Uncle, Robb Allen, or Squeaky. I do not remember for certain.
